By Mary W Maxwell
I think I’m getting religion. This morning I was feeling very joyful about the new book by Rebekah Roth, “Methodical Deception,” which is a tell-all concerning 9-11. I am sick of working on the subject and won’t now have to bother anymore. She has found the culprits.
I considered writing an article entitled “Rebekah’s Book is my Nunc Dimittis.” OK, you non-Catholics that’s from Luke 2:29 — “Now, Master, you can let your servant go in peace, just as you promised.”
So then I looked up the ‘matching’ hymn, “O Magnify the Lord,” to which my sister and I used to harmonize. (She is a cantor in her church near Boson.)
As you know, one thing leads to another on Youtube, and that song led me to some kindergarten-age children singing the following words:
“I command you, Satan, in the name of the Lord to put down your weapons and flee. For the Lord has given me authority to walk all over thee.”
That is from Luke 4:6. It led me to Luke 10: 17-19: “The seventy-two returned with joy and said, ‘Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.’ He replied, ‘I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.’”
Oh my, so apt for the occasion – the unraveling of the mystery of 9-11. Time to get rid of the devils. Yeah, man.
Well, that is all I am going to say, as there is nothing more to be said about 9-11. I’ve given Rebekah her just deserts at Rumor Mill dot com, quod vide. Please check it out for its musical offering.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=27659
Rebekah Roth
Thanks – replaced with this shorter version.
Dee, I think this video is faster-paced, and she tells most iof the dirt from 5.15 mins to 13.5 mins:
In an earlier Gumshoe article, I discussed the phone calls made by the stewardesses, by interviewing Elias Davidsson. I also publsihed an article suggesting that the passengers are stil alive, but it seems to have disappeared from Google. It was called “Grave, Where Is Thy Victory?”
http://gumshoenews.com/2014/02/20/hijacking-americas-mind/
Lookie lookie, how at first only a few people take an interest in Gumshoe and then everbody comes over and is joyful.
Dear Readers, After a while I wised up and realized Ms Roth is not the real deal. I apologize near end of thsi thread in December 2018 (using the name 26chatswoth). Still, you might like to read this whole thread for its attack on my methodology.
If you wish to see another article I wrote about the phone calls, with info I got from Davidsson, here ’tis:
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/07/some-9-11-related-happiness-for-the-fourth-of-july-2014-2985636.html
And now a professor speaks about how the 2003 invasion of Iraq woke him up to the fact that the Bush family did 9-11.
I am replying here to the two comments made by Christopher Brooks and Terry Shulze under my article “Death O Where Is Thy Sting?” (as we have run out of space over there). In that article I stated my belief that there were no planes on 9-11, and also that the new wife of Ted Olson is probably Barbara herself.
Christopher said “Speculations, theories and fictional novels are not legal proof of anything.” I absolute agree that speculations and theories are not proof. By definition, a person who ‘speculates’ is employing some combination of experience and imagination. Indeed I said I was guessing about Mrs Olson. I am aware that I may be wrong.
I can say with absolute certainty that Barbara did not perish on a plane piloted by Hani Hanjour from which she phoned her spouse. What do I mean by “I can say with absolute certainty?” Again, I am just being an ordinary human. I mean the info I’ve got is enough to satisfy me. Will it satisfy anyone else? That is for them to determine. Natch.
As for Rebekah Roth’s book being a ‘fictional novel,’ no it really isn’t. She is looking at the actual events of 9-11. For some reason (maybe to avoid a libel suit?) she chose the format known as a novel, and changed a few names. Her labeling it a ‘fiction’ is itself ‘a legal fiction.’
Is her work worth anything? I certainly think it is. You will have to listen to her interviews (or read her books) to see how many observations she makes about the content of the phone calls and how it does not accord with her experience as a stewardess. Soounds spot-on to me.
Likewise, Elias Davidsson’s book, “Hijacking America’s Mind,” analyzes the phone calls, and finds that they COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE FRON PLANES. His book is a masterpiece. Anyway I have complete faith in him as he is famous for being repulsed by sloppy work.
To both Terry and Christopher I say that my theory of ‘no planes’ did not come from watching any of the vids by disnfo artists. I have never watched them. I hate much of the stuff that poses as 9-11 research. My belief (of course it is only a belief) that jumbo jets were not used at Pentagon, PA, or WTC comes from realizing that no planes were needed. The desired goal was to create fear and chaos in the nation. Mere pictures were enough to do that. Supplemented by wild stories from the media.
Anyway, I took that snapshot of the monument in Marblehead, as it infuriates me that right there in a town full of wealthy and super-educated peeps there would be planted a ‘patriotism enhancer.’ (I got that term from a friend who said the Charlie Hebdo killings in Paris were a patriotism enhancer for the French.) The ‘tombstone’ says “died in acts of terror.” Well that is a lie and I can’t stand it.
http://gumshoenews.com/2015/02/04/revisiting-the-pentagon-one-nose-three-holes/#more-3060 I posted Barbara Honegger’s analysis : ‘Behind the Smoke Curtain Pentagon Attack’ some time ago.
I found this 35-minute tape very enlightening. It is about what happened in the few days after 9-11. For example, she says every hotel in New York had a bomb scare, leading to evacuation of the guests. My opinion is that such a thing was carried out by the same creeps who did 9-11.
I mean it wasn’t Mohammed Atta, was it?
Roth, Davidsson, Griffith and Honegger are all challenged by this painstaking referenced and objectively discussed essay on the 9/11 in flight communications written by Eric Larson.
http://www.911review.com/articles/larson/FakeCallsCritique.html
The conclusion paragraphs expound the multiple flaws in critical thinking method practiced by the four above authors.
We all should have a thinking method protocol manual of sorts, similar in points to Eric’s advice, that keep us calibrated and cautious before we turn opinions into facts and proof.
While investigation of the crimes of the global plutocracy and their drive for hegemony are successfully contaminated by a constant stream of wedge disinformation there is no chance of achieving our freedom potential.
Questions, theories, hypothesis and speculations are essential aspects of thinking and research but facts and proof are another matter altogether.
It is essential we can understand the difference and have a methodology of thinking that works reliably. We need to have a disinformation alert reflex operating at all times, to protect ourselves, because a money printing press can buy a mountain of clever deception that is dressed up “sexy as hell” to seduce and poison all our effort.
In 2002, Nafeez Mosadedeq Ahmed, published “The War On Freedom”, which presented a deeply referenced prosecution case that the “official 9/11 story” is fraudulent, but thanks to an endless stream of contaminating disinformation fashions of the day that discredit all attempts to bring accurate common understanding of our political and economic architecture, thirteen years later the problems and effects are multiplying instead of being exposed and solved.
I will confess I find this very annoying.
I have posted this comment on Rebekah Roth’s Facebook page where her books are promoted.
Hi Rebekah, I am not as enthused about your activities and contribution to our honest understanding of 9/11 and our political realities as some others appear.
You have integrated many of the subjects and theories that have been extensively discussed since the event but I cannot identify any idea in your story that is not more than a decade or more since it was debated and argued to pointless purpose.
Can you link me to some evidence of your claimed career and work history?
Can you link me to the documents and evidence that you rely upon to formulate your theories?
You make the claim in your publicity that you are a leading 9/11 researcher so your response to the following questions should be of informative value for readers.
Can you link any interview that was a critical investigation of your claims as apposed to a publicity exercise for your books?
Have you studied this critical response to David Ray Griffin”s theories on in flight communications?
http://www.911review.com/articles/larson/FakeCallsCritique.html
Have you read Nafeez Mosadedeq Ahmed’s early published “The War On Freedom”?
Do you think Nafeez is a competent author and researcher?
Who would you nominate as five very worthy sources of research and critical thinking on the subject of the what/who and why of 9/11?
Contamination, distraction and Sorcery of many flavours has plagued and discredited serious rational 9/11 researchers.
What good essays and articles could you nominate as valuable studies on 9/11 research disinformation methods and agencies?
I have posted these questions on Gumshoe News media where I am hoping to explore and evaluate your contribution to uncovering and addressing the crime and criminals of 9/11.
Ned wants us to look at this: (researched by Heidner):
“On that fateful day [9/11], the Securities and Exchange Commission declared a national emergency, and for the first time in U.S. history, invoked its emergency powers under Securities Exchange Act Section 12(k) easing regulatory restrictions for clearing and settling security trades for the next 15 days. These changes would allow an estimated $240 billion in covert government securities to be cleared upon maturity without the standard regulatory controls around identification of ownership.”
Dear Christopher, re your comment below, I see from worldcat.org that six libraries in Australia are carrying Elias Davidsson’s book which deals with the phone calls from the planes. He does it in a way that I think you will find very enlightening. If you order a copy, via interlibrary loan, you won’t be disappointed. The title of the book is “Hijacking America’s Mind on 9-11: Counterfeiting Evidence.”
By trade Elias is a piano teacher and composer. (He is also an advocate of rights for Palestinians. He was born in Palestine before it was renamed Israel.) His interviews on Youtube are worth watching. Here again is my short (written) interview with him:
http://gumshoenews.com/2014/02/20/hijacking-americas-mind/#more-332
Mary, Eric Larson’s critique discredits Davidsson, Roth and Griffiths. Which part of Larson,s argument do you think is false?
Davidsson’s thesis is based on not getting access to data which he then assumes as proof no “hijackers” were on the planes. This is not a valid proof. It just identifies unanswered questions. Larson’s evidence exposes problems in Davidsson’s thesis.
Davidsson is generally cautious, thoughtful and consistent with his argument, though it is challenged by other information.
Roth’s hypothesis is unsupported by any facts though she makes various vague claims that she has “evidence” in her publicity interviews but the scrutiny of herself and her claims in the string of podcasts is almost non existent.
Rebekah has drawn conclusions that are tenuous and contradicted by other information like the on board phone evidence referenced by Larson.
In fact the general treatment of Roth by the alternative media “journalists” is more akin to teenagers gushing over an idol declaring her novels have solved the 9/11 puzzle.
In a sense it is a shocking demonstration of how so much effort over 14 years has come to nothing because my judgement is Roth is leading a 9/11 pack of lemmings down a tunnel with no possible light at the end.
What information has she produced that has not been known and discussed a decade ago?
How can all the commentators be so blindly ignorant of all the previous research on these issues?
This behavior baffles me but it has been the pattern.
Surely Mary, the first step must be to authenticate her credentials, history and claims.
I have put my questions on her Facebook page and await answers to sort out the value of her story.
Christopher, I can’t share your interest in Rebekah’s credentials or history. A person with zip credentials and history can contribute importantly re our horrendous predicament.
I ordered her book last week and it hasn’t arrived yet. I will comment later.
My enthusiasm for R is not that she has something new. What she has is a way with radio. This is essential. Small time operators like me and thee are not reaching thousands of people. My book Prosecution for Treason is fabulous, fabulous I tell you, but no copies get sold. Even the free download is not popular!!! I know plenty of Americans who will be fascinted by R because she recalls the ‘celebs’ such as Todd Beamer. Fine, they’ll be forced to realize that the movie “Let’s Roll” is a hoax.
I hate to spend time on any detail of 911. Dee goes in for some of the engineering stuff of Bldg 7 but I refuse to even chat about it with her. We need to deal with the BIG, ENORMOUS fact that it was an inside job. In the Marathon case we need to pursue the death-in-custody of Tamerlan. In Port Arthur we need to deal with WHO PLANNED IT AND KILLED THE 35 PEOPLE.
Mary, if you bring testimony into a court room but do not first establish the credentials of your testifier, you are leaving yourself open to totally discrediting your case.
Once in the courtroom before the jury, the very first task is to establish and test the quality and reliability of the subject that is going to testify.
If a witness who is perceived to be the key to prosecuting the conspiracy unravels as untrustworthy, or compromised, or contaminated, in any number of ways the case can collapse even when the charged criminal is guilty.
It would be reckless and foolish to not conduct due diligence.
In fact it would likely be a criminal offence of negligence.
There is a correct process of research and investigation which is being transgressed at this point regarding Roth.
How can you expect to have an accountable constituted system if you will not even apply the principles yourself, or have the expectation that others act judiciously with rational process.
Populist appeal is not the measure of a fact or a correct principle.
Roth may be reaching an audience that has not studied the “war on terror” previously but I have referenced evidence that contradicts her speculation which opens up the probability Roth is destroying the search for truth, not advancing truth.
At this point Roth has never even been asked or offered to evidence her identity or claims.
We can only discover what is true and false when accountable open constituted process is applied to all our information and theories.
Are you saying this does not apply to Rebekah Roth?
Until Roth subjects herself to reasonable critical scrutiny it is very unwise to promote her books or opinions.
I do not have a definitive judgement because it is impossible until the proper scrutiny is conducted.
The perception of frenzy beyond the already interested 9/11 research associations should be judged with caution.
Sadly for me, this episode is exposing the lemming thinking tendency and architecture of some aspects of the “truth movement” where entertainment and journalism are very blurry indeed.
Hopefully someone will join my concerns who can help to get a respectable standard of calibration and process applied to Rebekah Roth because anything less is unacceptable.
The Larson evidence I link is a strong challenging contradiction that must be calculated and negotiated, not ignored.
http://www.911review.com/articles/larson/FakeCallsCritique.html
Christopher, I consider it a sin for me to spend more time on this but here goes. Eric Lawson (have we put HIM thru the grill of cross-examination?) wrote the lengthy article to which you have provided the link. It is almost all about David Ray Griffin (whom I don’t mention in my books). Lawson quotes Griffin as saying:
“If asked which part of the official story can be most definitively shown to be false, I would speak not of the alleged phone calls but of the destruction of the World Trade Center, the official account of which says that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 came down without the aid of pre-set explosives.”
OK, that seems fine to me. Indeed Griffin has published much detail showing the dishonesty of the Commission Report, the laziness of Congress, etc.
Lawson then wants to fault Griffin for that (quoted) remark! How does Lawson proceed? He says: “Griffin is in error when he says the destructions of the WTC are the part of the official story that can most definitively shown to be false.” He — Lawson – goes on to list many other “more definitive items” including, say, the behavior of Pakistani Intelligence.
Well, who cares if Mr Lawson considers this, that, or the other thing to be important? Indeed who cares – I do not care – that any element of 9-11 be zeroed in on as being “the most false.” Griffin, in the above quote, was NOT trying to zero in. IMHO, he was saying, “Don’t get upset if we can’t be certain about the stupid-ass phone call, y’hear?”
Christopher, how do I decide when somebody is honest? In the 1964 case, Jacobellis v Ohio, US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart was asked to decide what was pornography. He famously said “I know it when I see it.” Well, that’s how it is with me evaluating a writer’s probity. I know it when I see it.
That’s all I can offer. I KNOW that the following persons have terrific probity: Niels Harrit, Elias Davidsson, and Christopher Brooks. Don’t try to get me to show how I engaged my cerebrum to determine that. It is not always cerebral. Some of it be gut instinct.
As for credentials, Michael Faraday quit school at age 14 and he seems to have done all right with the theory of electromagnetism.
This “Caravan To Midnight” episode is the most extensive Roth account I have consumed.
There are many, I have listened to several.
The Israeli/Jewish identity associations are mostly well known and documented in early 9/11 research more than a decade ago, though a couple of recent relations update the record.
Rebekah gives no credit to anyone in the promotion but indicates sources and documents are going to be published.
Rebekah did not answer my questions and she has disappeared my post from her Facebook page but I would not judge too much from that action at this stage as she would no doubt be getting a lot of attention.
It is a fascinating mix Rebekah dishes up, including a very passionate discourse on the Syrian situation and a very strong urging inclusion of the “Liberty” affair.
Rebekah relates several seductive “new” testimonies that would need calibrated scrutiny before the information could be judged.
The issues surrounding radar records, flight paths, transponders and recorded and related conversations, is very complex to follow and evaluate.
Various flight swapping and drone theories were postulated and explored in the very early years following the 9/11 event but it is very likely a greater breadth of data may be accessible now than a decade ago as secrecy and seeping information in the early years was a recipe for errors and faulty assumptions.
I will certainly be interested in exploring the “Rebekah Roth” hypothesis when better interviews are conducted and her claimed “new” information is tabled.
Readers here are going to concur with her general conspiracy theory but any contaminating faulty aspects can be poison so the general rule must be approach with a defensive attitude because the pattern is problematic.
“any contaminating faulty aspects can be poison.”
Christopher, they won’t be poison to me. They well be interesting and I will be as happy as Larry to deal with them. I will also be happy to discover that Roth is a disinfo person if that is so. Wait till I get the book, and I will report to Gumshoe.
I credit you for your persistence, and your high standards.
Maybe Dee should have clarified, when she began the Gumshoe website, or at least when Yours Truly joined as a “contributor” that this is not a courthouse, or a science lab. It is a place for news commentary and analysis and humor.
Two questions, for the record: 1. Is MWM fundamentally biased against their having been box-cutter-wielding Muslims on the planes (or should I say the “planes”)? Yes.
2. Is MWM fundamentally biassed against the story that the Tsarnaev brothers boasted to Dun Meng that they had “done” the Marathon bombing? Yes, yes, a hundred times yes.
(I mean it IS sheer BIAS. I just can’t accept that kind of implausible stuff. A man who is a fugitive from justice [WHAT A WORD!] does not go around confessing. (So say I.)
By the way, now that I have seen the vid of Dun Meng at another convenience store making an emergency call, I am inclined to think that a “fake” set of Tsarnaev brothers did carjack him. So he would be able to schpiel the story with credibility.
The following page provides an interview where Rebekah Roth is subjected to a little higher standard of scrutiny and information beyond her familiar script.
Rebekah looses her composure and threatens to cease the interview.
http://www.qmamedia.com/show-updates/
I am writing this on November 18, 2017, two years after the above discussion with our thinking-methodology expert, Christopher Brooks.
As the thing progressed I found out “to my satisfaction” that Rebekah Roth is a total phoney. Am amazed that I fell for her radio show.
I guess her phoniness does not hinder the 9-11research very much. In any case I APOLOGIZE TO ALL GUMSHOE READERS.
MORE RECENTLY I WRAPPED UP WHAT I CONSIDER THE ESSENTIAL POINTS, IN THE FOLLOWING GUMSHOE ARTICLE:
https://gumshoenews.com/2017/08/27/who-killed-cock-robin-a-book-review-of-911-exposed-and-the-myth-of-the-war-on-terror/
And here I am again now 3 years out from the article. I am grateful to Christopher but I still reject this remark by him:
“Mary, if you bring testimony into a court room but do not first establish the credentials of your testifier, you are leaving yourself open to totally discrediting your case.”
My rejecting of that statement is: WE ARE NOT IN A COURT ROOM.
(Although we are trying to get into a court room!!)
Also, in case readers missed my big 100% apology about my endorsing Rebekah Roth (can’t remember which comment thread I posted it on), let me say again: i got took.
Nowadays I would refer peeps to Kevin Ryan’s excellent book Another Nineteen.
Yay!